Originally Posted by
DaveNelson
Although Curtis LeMay was an extreme political right winger, he would probably only be considered a war criminal by somebody on the far left, an assertion that could not be reliably backed up by any legal standard that would have led to a conviction. Although LeMay was viscously parodied as General Jack D. Ripper in Dr. Strangelove, there is no conclusive evidence of war crimes on his part by any conventional standard. You're certainly not suggesting that his bombing campaign against Japan in World War II was a war crime, are you? Were the Army Air Force generals who planned the firebombing of Dresden war criminals? Was Truman a war criminal for dropping the atomic bomb?
The indiscriminate killing of civilians is the definition of a war crime.
Except when you win the war; then the war criminal becomes the hero. We all know that.
Originally Posted by
DaveNelson
Not necessarily. If Jack London had pontificated on physics, mathematics, or the manufacture of Christmas tree ornaments, it would have been ad hominem to attack him on moral grounds. Since London was questioning the morality of "scabs," he was legitimately vulnerable to argumentation based on his own personal morality. You need to give the "book definition," a little more study.
My understanding of an
Ad Hominem attack is like this: say for instance that the Pope passes judgment on some apostates. Even if he is guilty of the same moral deficiencies, this doesn't invalidate his judgment. Therefore, I cannot say, "well, the Pope is also guilty, so he cannot pass moral judgement." That would be
Ad Hominem attack. I can only attack the substance of the argument directly and invalidate his judgement because it lacks merit.
So, Mr. London could have been a scab himself and he would still be absolutely right on his assessment.
Sorry for hijacking the original thread.